What Makes a College Coach Walk Away from a Job Opportunity

SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN 

What causes a college coach to look at a job opening and decide, “That’s probably not for me”?

Is it outdated facilities?

A struggling program?

Moving to a lower competitive level?

Those things matter. But according to our latest research, they may not matter nearly as much as athletic directors think.

As part of our 2026 College Coaching Job Search Study, we surveyed more than 300 college coaches about their experiences, priorities, and decision-making during the job search process.

We’ll be releasing the full report in the coming weeks, but one question produced some particularly interesting results.

We asked coaches:

“How negatively would each factor affect your willingness to pursue a position?”

They evaluated 15 different factors on a scale ranging from “Absolute Dealbreaker” to “No Effect.”

Several findings stood out.

1. Financial realities sit clearly at the top

Three factors separated themselves from almost everything else:

• Compensation that is not competitive relative to the area’s cost of living
• Concerns about the institution’s financial condition or enrollment
• A position requiring a salary reduction of approximately 10–30%

Nearly 69% of coaches said compensation that does not align with the local cost of living would be either a major obstacle or an absolute dealbreaker.

Similarly, 68% said concerns about an institution’s financial condition or enrollment would rise to that same level.

And 61.2% viewed a significant salary reduction as a major obstacle or dealbreaker.

For athletic directors, there is an important distinction here.

Coaches are not simply asking, “What does this job pay?”

Increasingly, they appear to be asking:

“Can my family realistically build a life there?”

A salary that might look reasonable on paper can feel very different once housing costs, taxes, schools, childcare, commuting, or other local expenses are considered.

That means compensation conversations probably need more context than simply providing a salary range.

2. Institutional stability has become part of recruiting candidates

The institutional financial health result deserves particular attention.

More than one-third of respondents — 34% — called concerns about institutional finances or enrollment an absolute dealbreaker.

That was actually the highest “absolute dealbreaker” percentage of any factor we measured.

That tells me coaches aren’t evaluating only the athletic department anymore.

They are evaluating the institution behind it.

With the financial pressures facing many colleges, candidates may be wondering:

• Is enrollment stable?
• Is the institution financially healthy?
• Is athletics supported by senior leadership?
• Could programs or positions be eliminated?
• Will this opportunity still look viable three or five years from now?

Athletic directors cannot always control the answers to those questions.

But they can control whether candidates receive clear, credible, and transparent information about them.

Trying to avoid those conversations may actually create more concern than addressing them directly.

3. Coaches care a great deal about who they will work for

Concerns about the athletic director, department culture, or staff turnover ranked fourth overall.

Nearly 59% of coaches described those concerns as either a major obstacle or an absolute dealbreaker.

That is higher than concerns surrounding facilities, recruiting resources, assistant coaches, operating budgets, mission fit, or competitive level.

For athletic directors, that is worth considering.

Candidates are evaluating you and your department just as carefully as you are evaluating them.

They notice turnover.

They ask other coaches about leadership.

They pay attention to how people interact during interviews.

And they are trying to determine whether the environment will allow them to succeed.

The candidate experience itself communicates something about the culture.

4. Coaches may tolerate limited resources. They are less willing to tolerate unrealistic expectations.

This may be one of the more important distinctions in the survey.

Concerns that expectations for competitive success were unrealistic relative to available resources ranked fifth overall.

More than 54% of coaches considered that either a major obstacle or an absolute dealbreaker.

Compare that with several resource-related issues:

• Limited scholarship, financial-aid, admissions, or recruiting support: 45.9%
• Limited ability to hire or retain assistants: 45.8%
• Limited operating/recruiting budget or significant fundraising expectations: 41.1%
• Below-standard facilities: 21.2%

The message doesn’t appear to be:

“I need unlimited resources.”

It may be closer to:

“Be honest about the resources, and make sure the expectations match them.”

That matters tremendously for smaller colleges.

Many coaches understand that they will not have everything they want. They can operate creatively. They can fundraise. They can recruit without elite facilities. They can build.

But asking someone to compete at one level while supporting the program at another creates a much more serious concern.

5. Job design matters more than many schools may realize

Another factor near the top was whether the role involved substantial secondary duties or limited authority.

More than 58% of respondents rated that as either a major obstacle or absolute dealbreaker.

That put it essentially alongside concerns about department culture.

This is especially relevant in small-college athletics, where coaches frequently wear multiple hats.

Secondary responsibilities are often unavoidable.

But there is a difference between:

“This position requires some additional responsibilities because of who we are as an institution”

and

“You will be held fully accountable for results while lacking the time or authority necessary to produce them.”

Athletic directors may want to examine not only how much they are paying a coach, but also exactly what they are asking that coach to do for that compensation.

6. Family considerations are personal — and potentially decisive

The family-related response is interesting because it is more polarized than many of the others.

If a move created significant challenges for a spouse, partner, or family, 27.4% called it an absolute dealbreaker.

Yet 12.2% said it would have no effect at all.

That makes sense.

Family circumstances vary significantly from candidate to candidate.

But it also reinforces why successful searches require more than evaluating resumes.

An opportunity can make perfect professional sense and still fail because it does not make sense for the candidate’s family.

Understanding those considerations earlier — while respecting appropriate boundaries — can save both the institution and candidate considerable time later in the process.

7. Facilities matter — but perhaps not as much as we assume

Facilities finished 13th out of the 15 factors we measured.

Only 21.2% of respondents viewed below-standard facilities as an absolute dealbreaker or major obstacle.

By comparison, coaches were more than twice as likely to express that level of concern about limited recruiting/admissions/financial-aid support or the inability to hire and retain assistants.

That doesn’t mean facilities are irrelevant.

Nearly 40% still described them as a significant consideration.

But there appears to be an important hierarchy.

Coaches may be willing to work around imperfect facilities if the people, expectations, resources, and institutional situation make sense.

A beautiful facility cannot compensate for dysfunction elsewhere.

8. Coaches don’t appear afraid of rebuilding

This was perhaps the most surprising result.

When we asked about pursuing a program that had struggled competitively or required a major rebuild, only:

• 1.3% called it an absolute dealbreaker
• 1.7% called it a major obstacle

Meanwhile, 80.1% said a rebuild would either be only a minor concern or have no effect at all.

Think about that.

College coaches are often competitive by nature. Many want an opportunity to build something.

A struggling record alone doesn’t necessarily scare them.

The bigger question is whether there is a credible pathway forward.

Do they have administrative support?

Can they recruit the students they need?

Are expectations realistic?

Will they have enough authority to shape the program?

Is the institution stable enough to give them time to build?

Coaches don’t appear afraid of hard jobs. They appear much more cautious about impossible ones.

9. “Moving backward” may matter less than opportunity

Similarly, moving to a division, conference, or competitive level perceived as a step backward ranked 14th out of 15 factors.

More than 60% of respondents said it would either be a minor concern or have no effect.

That should encourage smaller colleges competing for talented coaches.

You may not need to “out-prestige” another institution.

You need to articulate why your opportunity is meaningful.

A coach may willingly move to a different level for:

• Better leadership
• Greater stability
• More authority
• Better family fit
• A mission they believe in
• An opportunity to build
• A healthier professional environment

Career decisions are rarely as linear as a résumé might suggest.

The bigger lesson for athletic directors

When I look across these results, one theme keeps emerging.

Coaches seem considerably more willing to accept challenges than uncertainty or misalignment.

They will consider rebuilding programs.

They will consider imperfect facilities.

They will consider different competitive levels.

Many will operate with limited resources.

But their willingness drops much faster when they encounter questions about:

financial viability, compensation, leadership, culture, unrealistic expectations, role design, and their family’s ability to make the opportunity work.

That has implications for how athletic departments recruit coaches.

The goal shouldn’t simply be to make the job sound attractive.

The goal should be to help candidates develop an accurate understanding of the opportunity.

Be transparent about the challenges.

Explain the resources.

Clarify expectations.

Describe the institutional situation.

Talk candidly about culture.

Make the compensation understandable within the context of the community.

And be clear about what authority and support the person will actually have.

The strongest candidates aren’t necessarily searching for perfect jobs.

They’re trying to determine whether the opportunity in front of them is one where they can realistically succeed.

And sometimes, greater transparency about an imperfect opportunity can be more compelling than trying to present a perfect one that doesn’t exist.